Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

This seems a strange overreaction by Sir Stephen Laws. The ECJ has jurisdiction to interpret the Treaty and the Advocate General has been asked to give his opinion on the interpretation of Article 50 to assist the court. If the ECJ were to agree with him, it would not be compelling the UK parliament to do anything; it would simply be saying that if it wants to withdraw the Article 50 notice, it would not need the consent of the other 27 member states (in contrast with what would be needed to extend the two-year notice period).

I am also puzzled by Ian Newbery's reference to Article 50(3). If the Article 50 notice were withdrawn within the two-year period, the effect of withdrawal would be to make the notice void ab initio, so the two-year period would cease to run.

More generally, the thing which concerns me about the 2016 referendum result is that it is increasingly out of date. Much has happened in the ensuing two and a half years, not least the composition of the electorate. I understand that some 1.6m voters have since died, while some 1.8m people who were too young to vote then have since come of age. By treating the 2016 poll as an immutable tablet of stone, we are effectively giving more weight to the views of the dead than to those of today's 18, 19 and 20 year old citizens, who will have far longer than most of us to live with the consequences of Brexit.

Your details

Cancel